I'm guessing no chance that Obama's nominee will get in at this point. We're screwed.

 

Just hope RBG is able to last another 4 years...

Gorsuch told he is likely Trump's Supreme Court pick: CNN

Obstruction now, Obstruction forever!

Make sure you repeat that tonight with what the Democrats are planning.

Gorsuch told he is likely Trump's Supreme Court pick: CNN

 

I'm looking into Gorsuch now, but he doesn't seem that terrible (for a Conservative pick).

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/who-...al-views-234437

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cou...m=.e2eeae588320

 

There's some stuff that I don't really like in there - notably his position on RFRA and the contraception provision of the ACA, but he seems qualified to be on the Court.

Gorsuch told he is likely Trump's Supreme Court pick: CNN

 

And Trump is turning it into a reality show presentation, bringing both candidates before he puts the robe on the winner. Or gives him a rose.

I'm looking into Gorsuch now, but he doesn't seem that terrible (for a Conservative pick).

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/who-...al-views-234437

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cou...m=.e2eeae588320

 

There's some stuff that I don't really like in there - notably his position on RFRA and the contraception provision of the ACA, but he seems qualified to be on the Court.

 

He's qualified, it just really sucks that the Republicans essentially stole a supreme court seat by refusing to hold hearings on President Obama's nomination.

 

God help us if Trump gets a second pick from RGB retiring/passing.

 

edit: the biggest possible change I think I've heard about him is that he's highly skeptical of Chevron deference.

Edited January 31, 20179 yr by StrangeSox

He's qualified, it just really sucks that the Republicans essentially stole a supreme court seat by refusing to hold hearings on President Obama's nomination.

 

God help us if Trump gets a second pick from RGB retiring/passing.

 

edit: the biggest possible change I think I've heard about him is that he's highly skeptical of Chevron deference.

 

No doubt. The Republicans absolutely stole a seat through unprecedented obstructionism. And that's garbage, but the Ds can't filibuster the seat for 4 years.

 

Agreed on his position on Chevron. Also agreed that Trump is turning the announcement into a circus...

No doubt. The Republicans absolutely stole a seat through unprecedented obstructionism. And that's garbage, but the Ds can't filibuster the seat for 4 years.

 

Agreed on his position on Chevron. Also agreed that Trump is turning the announcement into a circus...

Why is 10 months just fine but 4 years isn't?

No doubt. The Republicans absolutely stole a seat through unprecedented obstructionism. And that's garbage, but the Ds can't filibuster the seat for 4 years.

 

Agreed on his position on Chevron. Also agreed that Trump is turning the announcement into a circus...

 

They could do it. But I am not sure if they all have the political capital to get re-elected and do it. This is why what the Republican's did is a dangerous precedent. If the Democrats stick together, they can basically tell Trump they wont approve any SC nomination until Garland at least gets a vote. I think that many Democratic Senators would risk very little with this move, but there may be enough who fear losing in 2-4 years.

 

It will be interesting to see what they do, someone has to end vendetta politics, but with the way Trump has acted I am not sure that he has given the Democrats a good reason to play nice.

 

My personal opinion is that I dont really believe in these type of games, but at the same time, its hard to watch someone else do it and then hold yourself back on principle.

Weren't the Republicans saying before the election if Hillary was elected the wouldn't let her get anyone on the Court?

Weren't the Republicans saying before the election if Hillary was elected the wouldn't let her get anyone on the Court?

While his history is poor, here's Ted Cruz last October:

Asked about the Supreme Court at a campaign event, Cruz said, “There will be plenty of time for debate on that issue, there is long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices, just recently Justice [stephen] Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job, that’s a debate that we are going to have.”

While his history is poor, here's Ted Cruz last October:

 

Sen. Burr had this to say in October:

Burr added: "And if Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court."

I think they'll confirm him and maybe negotiate for something else. With an aging court, I bet he gets at least one, if not two more picks. One would be OK, but two more could be a huge shift for decades to come. If there's any lawyers out there who can confirm for me that settled case law can not be overturned, I won't worry. But if that's not the case, I think lots of people should be concerned by the make up of the court going forward.

RBG needs to not die, and Anthony Kennedy needs to not retire like he's now threatening.

 

Dems should block this nom out of principle, but it was a shrewd move by Trump to pick someone reasonable, even if I wholeheartedly disagree with him on everything AND the way he interprets the constitution...

RBG needs to not die, and Anthony Kennedy needs to not retire like he's now threatening.

 

Dems should block this nom out of principle, but it was a shrewd move by Trump to pick someone reasonable, even if I wholeheartedly disagree with him on everything AND the way he interprets the constitution...

The Republicans did what the Democrats refuse to and that is let the people decide. The people elected the President that made it perfectly clear he would replace the spot with an Originalist. If the people would have elected Hillary, we'd have the hearing on Garland. As such, if the Democrats really do try and filibuster this, it's going to turn off much of America and could be a crushing blow to the Democratic party.

He actually made a choice that a normal Republican would make. I guess that when you need an established judge that the Senate will need to approve, you can't just nominate a Bannon inspired Leninist Nazi puppet.

The Republicans did what the Democrats refuse to and that is let the people decide. The people elected the President that made it perfectly clear he would replace the spot with an Originalist. If the people would have elected Hillary, we'd have the hearing on Garland. As such, if the Democrats really do try and filibuster this, it's going to turn off much of America and could be a crushing blow to the Democratic party.

We can decide in 2020. Why is 11 1/2 months an ok amount of time to wait but not 4 years?

He actually made a choice that a normal Republican would make. I guess that when you need an established judge that the Senate will need to approve, you can't just nominate a Bannon inspired Leninist Nazi puppet.

He replaced Scalia with a clone. Not shocking.

We can decide in 2020. Why is 11 1/2 months an ok amount of time to wait but not 4 years?

The court should be filled. If Scalia would have passed say mid-term, there would be no call to wait the two years as the people already voted for President Obama. In this case it was deemed by many that President Obama was not the same man elected in 2012 and in the middle of an election cycle, the decision was made to allow the people have a voice. Admirably really.

 

EDIT: If there is an opening in the next election cycle for President, I'll be good with waiting for the election again.

Edited February 1, 20179 yr by brett05

The court should be filled. If Scalia would have passed say mid-term, there would be no call to wait the two years as the people already voted for President Obama. In this case it was deemed by many that President Obama was not the same man elected in 2012 and in the middle of an election cycle, the decision was made to allow the people have a voice. Admirably really.

 

EDIT: If there is an opening in the next election cycle for President, I'll be good with waiting for the election again.

 

I literally can't believe people fall for these arguments.

 

Scalia didn't die a week before the election, during the transition period afterwards. He died with nearly a full year remaining in Obama's term. Republicans said they were going to hold out through Clinton's term if she was elected too. It was 100% a power grab. The Constitution doesn't have a method of actually making the Senate do their job, so Republicans took advantage by not doing it. They successfully stole a SCOTUS seat.

The court should be filled. If Scalia would have passed say mid-term, there would be no call to wait the two years as the people already voted for President Obama. In this case it was deemed by many that President Obama was not the same man elected in 2012 and in the middle of an election cycle, the decision was made to allow the people have a voice. Admirably really.

 

EDIT: If there is an opening in the next election cycle for President, I'll be good with waiting for the election again.

So why is the distinction ok at 12 months but not 24?

 

Please lay out a rational argument for the difference. You aren't allowed to say "the court should be filled" when you had no issue whatsoever with the court remaining unfilled for a year.

He actually made a choice that a normal Republican would make. I guess that when you need an established judge that the Senate will need to approve, you can't just nominate a Bannon inspired Leninist Nazi puppet.

 

 

Leninist Nazi?

I literally can't believe people fall for these arguments.

 

Scalia didn't die a week before the election, during the transition period afterwards. He died with nearly a full year remaining in Obama's term. Republicans said they were going to hold out through Clinton's term if she was elected too. It was 100% a power grab. The Constitution doesn't have a method of actually making the Senate do their job, so Republicans took advantage by not doing it. They successfully stole a SCOTUS seat.

Exactly.

 

If I'm the democrats, I make it clear - nominate Merrick Garland, and they will both confirm him AND promise no filibuster on any future nominee during Trump's 4 years. That puts things back to the way it should work, and pops the balloon on continued obstructionism.

 

Leninist Nazi?

 

Bannon is a Nazi, and he has described himself as a "Leninist" in that he wants to completely tear down the system to rebuild his vision (ethnic nationalism) in its place.

 

LH is right when he says that this pick is what we could have expected out of a Jeb or Rubio or any other Republican.

Edited February 1, 20179 yr by StrangeSox

The Republicans did what the Democrats refuse to and that is let the people decide. The people elected the President that made it perfectly clear he would replace the spot with an Originalist. If the people would have elected Hillary, we'd have the hearing on Garland. As such, if the Democrats really do try and filibuster this, it's going to turn off much of America and could be a crushing blow to the Democratic party.

 

Lmao. A crushing blow. They literally have nothing to lose.

 

They have been trying to play nice for the last 8 years. Now they should do everything they can to make it as hard as possible for this nut to put anyone on the Supreme court or any law passed.

 

The ones who don't should be primaried when they are up for election.